#iran

Pence emerges unscathed from the liar’s den

Aside from the chronic bias of the moderator, VP Mike Pence remained calm at all times and showed up the flip-flop nature of Senator Kamala Harris who will be fact checked and exposed for all of the nonsense she espoused tonight. Pence constantly made the line,

Senator Harris, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts,”

the key undoing of most of her replies.

The beauty of Harris was that she naturally went straight to identity politics as a reason to vote for her. She also rattled off so many lies about her record from deflecting she co-sponsored AOC’s GND, denying Joe Biden had ever said he wanted to ban fracking, lying about pre-existing conditions with respect to healthcare to avoiding answering the question of packing the Supreme Court. It was so transparent. Especially when it came to foreign policy and ridiculous Russia allegations.

Pence’s best moment came when he dragged out the Obamagate investigation into the spotlight. He turned the Russia collusion nonsense straight back on the Dems and Hillary Clinton and made the point to the question of accepting the election result that, “the Democrats haven’t accepted the results from the last election” and HRC telling “Biden should not concede.” Pence pointed out that the Dems have put America through so many shambolic episodes such as impeachment and the Kavanaugh confirmation that their behaviour is on the ballot.

As an aside, my wife, whose second language is English and is not into politics at all, made the point about how inauthentic Kamala Harris was. The grin, the cackle and constant reference to her identity. In her view, Pence just came across as a steady hand who never lost his temper or got emotional.

Easy win for Pence.

Nobility in Iran’s Honesty? Not so fast.

It is one thing to admit a mistake. However the mainstream media is borderline complimenting Iran for its honesty, The Iranians initially denied shooting down the Ukrainian passenger jet by suggesting it had mentioned technical troubles with the tower. Then Iran tried to defend the use of bulldozers at the crash site and wasn’t looking to release the black boxes. Now the Revolutionary Guard admitted it to using a surface-to-air (SAM) missile to shoot it down by mistake.

However we are talking about the elite battle hardened fighting force of the Iranians. Not some bunch of cadets with the keys to toys they haven’t have sufficient training on. Let’s run through the logic of what we know.

First, no aircraft safety investigation body would ever dream of bulldozing a forensics site if they wished to find the root cause. Plane crashes are crimes scenes even when there is no foul play. Was it fatigue, engine failure, mid-air collision? Did the plane pancake? How far is the distance between nose and tail as well as wingtips? Did it disintegrate mid air? Black boxes tell only so much. Initially the Iranians weren’t looking to release them but now are allowing the French BEA to analyze the data.

Flight PS752 took off a bit after 6am. It would have been dawn. Flight 752’s strobe lights would have been visible at just under 8000ft provided there was no cloud cover. The speed during the climb would have been around 275kts. Cruise missiles don’t have strobe lights.

Audibly a 40 meter long Boeing 737-800 commercial jet has an engine speed during climb of c.5,000rpm (fan speed). It has a distinctive thrum. A 5.6 meter Tomahawk cruise missile turbofan shreiks at 36,000rpm. They aren’t built for durability. So a military spec missile engine spinning 7x faster than a CFM-56 turbofan sounds completely different. That alone would be an instant sign to a trained military of what the threat was.

US Tomahawk cruise missiles fly at sub 200ft. That is under two hundred feet. They are terrain hugging weapons. They travel at 550mph. Were the Tomahawk flying past a missile battery it would be simple to pick up visually.

The Iranians use state of the art Russian surface-to-air missiles (SAM). Russia makes the best SAM systems worldwide. Not only in accuracy terms but in detection terms. Tor or S-300 systems would be able to determine altitude, speed and size with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

SAM’s are designed to explode before the target, showering it with high velocity shrapnel like a shotgun to ensure the speeding target is essentially shredded. It does not detonate on contact. The SAM systems are designed to slow down as it approaches the target to inflict the maximum damage.

We do not need to mention that the loss of 176 lives is a tragedy. However the blame is squarely at the feet of the Revolutionary Guard. It is uncanny how the mainstream media is painting the admission by the Iranians as some sort of noble gesture. Does Trump killing such a senior target make for a viable excuse to shoot down a passenger jet?

If Trump hadn’t had Solameini assassinated then this tragedy wouldn’t have occurred is the mainstream media logic. How quickly the mainstream media forget that Obama conducted 542 drone strikes without the approval of Congress which killed nearly 3,800 people including 324 civilians. Is it fair to pin the Malaysian MH17 Boeing 777 shot down over Ukraine at his feet? Of course not.

How long should Trump have ignored oil tankers being attacked by Iran in the Gulf in May 2019? Should he have forgotten the US drone shot down by Iran in June 2019? The attack on a Saudi state run oil company in September 2019? The attacks in US military bases in Iraq in December 2019? Storming the US Embassy in Iraq in the same month? The death of a US contractor? At what point did the US allow Iran to continue without retaliation?

It is not to say the assassination of a ruthless terrorist was the most optimal outcome from a geopolitical stability perspective but the constant Iranian provocation was bound to result in a counter punch at some stage.

Now there is admission of guilt, this isn’t a sign of a noble gesture. It is a stuff up of epic proportions. There is no doubt that Iran would have been in maximum vigilance mode after Solemeini’s death. Aerial surveillance would have been on high alert. The most experienced crews would have manned the SAM sites. There can be no doubt it was a deliberate strike. Fighter jets wouldn’t have been flying at subsonic speeds over Iraq if they were intent on bombing targets. A passenger jet sounds different to a cruise missile.

Back in 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 over the Strait of Hormuz, misidentifying it as an enemy fighter jet. The Soviets shot down KAL 007 in 1983 for supposedly straying into USSR airspace. An Israeli flight out of Kenya narrowly escaped being shot down by a shoulder mounted SAM in 2002.

Analysing 37 anti-Trump Psychiatrists for glaring bias

On July 7, 2019, a video did the rounds on social media referring to a book titled, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,which contained the updated findings of 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts, led by Dr Bandy X. Lu, a forensic psychiatrist from Yale School of Medicine.  It followed on from a previous work published in October 2017, where only 26 other psychiatrists had joined forces with Lu at the time. 

Social media lapped up Dr. Lu’s claim that she was the President of the World Mental Health Coalition (WMHC).  If one throws ‘world‘ in a title it sounds more impressive, doesn’t it? Although Americans often struggle with the word “world”. For decades Americans hosted a baseball event called the “World Series” where no other nations played.

Still, we felt compelled to check how gargantuan the WMHC is to properly measure its global status. For reference, the American Psychiatric Association has c. 38,000 members. We could be easily led to believe the WMHC had multiples of that. Sadly not. It has a total of 37. Yes, thirty-seven. Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, we can get a fair idea of how much ‘pull’ WMHC hasn’t.

Turns out WHMC is an “all-volunteer organization, and donations are used for direct educational activities, to strengthen the fabric of society as we better our collective mental health.” with the following donation manifesto:

“We:

1. provide consultation to government bodies upon request;
2. organize public forums for discussion and education; and
3. alert, protect, and educate the public when when we see signs of imminent or lasting danger within the body politic or in its leaders.” [although there is a typo they might wish to address which we have highlighted for them]

Perhaps the most telling part of the bias in the updated version can be found in the Amazon summary of the latest book,

The prestigious mental health experts who have contributed to the revised and updated version of ‘The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump’ argue that their moral and civic “duty to warn” supersedes professional neutrality.

You don’t say? If these psychiatrists ever testify in court (as they proudly claim they often do), any attorney defending the accused should just dredge out this summary to prove they aren’t impartial by their own admission.

Lu proved once again that Trump Derangement Syndrome lives and breathes within the walls of elite tertiary institutions of America, just like Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan who admitted she crossed the road to avoid walking in front of a Trump building during her impeachment testimony. This is the level of maturity one gets for a $70,000pa education.

The WMHC has no qualms publishing a question from a town hall which included an “…historic number of leading psychiatrists in our country felt the imperative to publish such a book because of their unprecedented fears about a President with such severe mental problems…”

Historic being 37…If 500 law professors can get their act together on co-signing a letter on articles of impeachment, surely the psychiatric community can achieve a higher watermark. May we suggest they take a leaf out of the 11,000 scientists who signed a letter on climate change which Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore or Araminta Aardvark were among the co-signatories.

Back to the video. Lu’s opening statement was that Trump “failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity.”

Reading in a robotic style off an autocue, Dr. Lu said that Trump is unfit to be president based on the wealth of data gleaned from the 448-page Mueller Report (released to the public on April 18, 2019). So between April 18th to July 7th, the WMHC has absorbed all 448-pages with a thorough and impartial eye.

Forget that the Mueller said under oath that the report “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated” with Russia.

Dr Lu said, “first and foremost, we want to remove Mr Trump’s access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers…we could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important.”

Since when did 37 psychologists become experts in foreign policy?  In more than 1,000 days in office, no country has come close to being nuked by Trump. Unlike his predecessor, foreign powers realise he is not messing about. Cross a red line and there are consequences. Period. Are psychiatrists confusing unorthodoxy with mental illness?

Did the WMHC predict that Iran would end its retaliation so soon? It is a bit silly to believe that they won’t continue the 4-decade proxy war.

However CNN (which is in thorough need of psychiatric assessment alongside WaPo. NYT and other mainstream media outlets) indulged us with, “Iran’s strikes seem intended to avoid US deaths. Here’s why that might be the case.” Wow. That is a pretty darned expensive way to fire shots across a bow. We guess once in possession of Obama’s gift of billions, Iranian generals can afford the luxury of expending multiple $100,000 missiles instead of $1,000 shells.

Maybe the WMHC can tell us why CNN believes those thoughtful leaders of the Iranian regime were compassionate enough to spare the lives of an enemy they swear death to. Who knew?

Lu makes the audacious claim that, “Our work is not about Mr Trump who may not be a danger as a private citizen, but about protecting society against the powers of the presidency in a person who has not demonstrated the ability to handle them.

If the work isn’t about Trump, why does the WMHC have a section that also targets this administration’s border protection policies? It released a statement on refugees which said the following,

We write as mental health professionals who are deeply concerned about the psychological harm our nation’s current immigration practices inflict on asylum seekers, immigrant communities, and our society…We are alarmed that recent changes in executive policy and personnel show increasing cruelty with intent to inflict as much pain as the law allows.”

It is a safe assumption to think that the WMHC members aren’t staunch Republicans. Never mind that Obama first introduced kids in cages separation laws at the border, something confessed by the mainstream media late last year. Who needs facts on the psychiatrist’s couch?

Presumably, the next iteration of the book will suggest that the 63m that voted for Trump are equally in need of having their voting rights repealed for their inability to handle their democratic rights.

Lu proudly states she has testified in court cases with respect to forensic psychiatry but in this case feels that interviewing the subject is not important. She read out from the screen,

As the evidence was overwhelming, and since outside perspectives are more important in a functional exam than a personal interview, we did not feel we needed one…the wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible…in fact we had more and better data under sworn testimony than we have ever had in our usual practice.

Psychiatrists are banned by law from diagnosing patients without examining them although Lu thinks this step is unnecessary to make a determination that he is unfit. Hmmm.

Also, we are not interested in a diagnosis of the president because he is not our patient.

Lu said her group offered the president to undergo an examination if he believed himself fit. His office acknowledged receipt of the request. Like any sane human being, a polite “p*ss off” was the only appropriate reply to a bunch of sanctimonious intellectuals who think they know better than all of us.

Force in numbers (even as tiny as 37) signing consensus-based documents like this are the latest weapons used by liberals. Albert Einstein once said to a scientist who claimed he’d get 100 scientists to prove him wrong replied, “it only takes one!

Of course, we can already hear the defenders of the WMHC ring loud on the basis of their academic credentials.

However, we hold a different view. Just because one holds qualifications in a particular field from a reputable institution, doesn’t mean they don’t carry biases or conflicts of interest. Schools with brand names often escape rigorous scrutiny because they are so revered and citing them is seen as adding credibility to one’s own arguments.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change.

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that

“two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary? Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate sceptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not, in fact, possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

We don’t accuse the WMHC of committing crimes but we think this example shows that we shouldn’t blindly accept the findings from academics without heavier scrutiny.

Certainly, in the case of these 37 psychiatrists, even a deplorable uneducated Trump supporter can see through the heavy coats of bias and condescending rhetoric. The ultimate irony is these people have such confidence in their own intellectual superiority that they reckoned one would look under the hood.

Maybe when 200,000 global psychiatrists ascribe to the same view as WMHC, we may be inclined to lend more credibility to the suggestions of Trump being unfit for a role. At the moment the WMHC appears to be mentally unsuited to uphold the very high standards of the wonderful work done by the rest of the mental health community.

They needn’t worry. It is likely that more than 63 million Americans will make that determination in November 2020 on whether he is still fit to serve.

Liberals apologise to Iran

Brittany M Hughes unloads both barrels on liberal celebrities who apologized to Iran on behalf of America over the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

A different perspective on Iran

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1C888mSyD7s&feature=youtu.be

Iranian-American activist, Saghar Erica Kasraie, has made a video outlining her view which contradicts the propaganda machine glorifying the Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.

As an example, The NY Times’ obituary, titled, ‘Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast‘ reads like he was a veritable patron saint rather than a terrorist.

In Kasraie’s opinion there are many more Iranians celebrating his death than made out by the media. Her Facebook page has dozens of interesting videos depicting the oppression of the Iranians at home.

You be the judge.

Iran & the media vs Trump

So Iran has yanked the chain of the British. While a British ship prevented an Iranian tanker headed to Syria from reaching its destination in violation of sanctions, the Iranians returned the favour, albeit without legal pretense.

It is easy for Iran to take advantage of the political malaise in Britain but it would be unwise to risk antagonizing Trump beyond this because there will be no red lines with invisible ink unlike his predecessor.

To Iran’s benefit is the Trump hating media. No doubt they’ll make much noise saying that the ayatollahs are paragons of peace and defenseless against American might. If a saber is rattled then it’s nothing more than chest beating and Trump will only look to whack a ‘shithole’ country to please his base.

Pretend for a second it was Obama. If an ally had a civilian ship boarded by armed Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops in violation of international law, would we protest if Obama stood up and warned Iran to step off or face military intervention? The media would embrace it.

Iran is itching to push Trump’s resolve. It’s deep involvement in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq is not lost on anyone with their eyes open. This proxy war has been ongoing for decades.

Don’t be surprised if the Russians start shipping some more S-400 Triumf SAM systems to Iran in order to level the playing field a bit. The Iranians already have the upgraded P-270 Moskits and P-800 Oniks anti ship missiles. If you see America attack Iran, these batteries will be first on this list to be take out as they are virtually unstoppable once launched. Can one imagine the implications of a US carrier sunk in the Gulf? That would cause a massive reprisal which would move this beyond a skirmish. Buy Gold.

Don’t forget Iran is Rosoborenexport’s second largest export client. That will be proper collusion, not the nonsense dreamed up by the Dems at election time which even if true would wilt in the shadow of Google’s meddling.

This has the potential to turn very ugly. It all rests on Iran’s shoulders. It’s not the Iranian people who are a problem. It’s the regime.

Netanyahu honours US president with Trump Heights

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has honoured President Trump with a settlement in the Golan Heights, citing that the American leader has done much for the security of Israel and Iranian aggression. The last time such an honour was cast upon an American president was the Kfar Truman in 1949. Cue the left losing their minds.

Israel trolls Iran

The Iranian Air Force Chief threatened to “eliminate Israel from earth” after the Israeli Air Force bombed Syrian based Iranian installations. This is how the IDF responded on Twitter to the threat.

Putin’s puppet?

AC648542-74BE-4807-8536-F1F34747ADE9

Not surprising from Rasmussen overnight:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 65% of Likely Democratic Voters believe critics of Trump’s recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin truly believe he is a treasonous Russian puppet. Just as many Republicans (67%) disagree and think those critics are only making the charges for political purposes, a view shared by a plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party.”

Trump’s  unconventional (yet unsurprising) outburst of diplomacy against Iran (if it can be called that) on Twitter in capital letters does dispel this somewhat. To fire a social media salvo at Rosoboronexport’s second largest arms customer (one Russia has sold weapons to Iran  for 98 years) would somewhat dispel that myth of kowtowing to Putin’s every move. 85% of Iran’s military hardware is Russian. Syria is Russia’s #1 export client with the prize being the naval base in the Mediterranean port of Tartus.

In any event both Iran and Syria serve Russia’s ability to interfere with US policy in the Middle East. Israel now claims Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have stepped up from being mere advisors in the Golan Heights to actively fighting. Israel has commenced day raids in Syria such has the threat escalated.

If POTUS is intending  to remove one or two of Putin’s clients (list here) then one suspects the Russian dictator should be pulling Iran’s strings to get them to arm in silence rather than pick a fight with the US.

Perhaps a more apt way to look at this is Trump’s hatred of Obama’s (foreign) policies far outweighs his supposed love of Putin. The evidence for that is not only obvious but entirely factual, backed with empirical evidence.

More digital diplomacy

9D4DB434-12D5-4836-9424-E5AA3802C856.jpeg

More digital diplomacy from Israel to Iran. This time using Iran’s solid performance against Portugal in the World Cup. The last time digital diplomacy was used by the Israeli PM was to push free drip irrigation technology to prevent farmers suffering any more from drought. Bibi Netanyahu is a polarizing figure at home, but his message here seems to be resonating with Iranians too.